Today's BEP's tops a report with the headline that 'MPs oppose the Severn Barrage'. And then goes on to mention only one MP in its article (and a Lib Dem one at that). Who turns out not to actually oppose a barrage at all. He just wants the shorter option.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Ac yma yw'r lle ble mae'r gwaed yn drwm
Wrthi'n bygwth ein boddi
At least they seem to be trying to assess the impact from many perspectives.
Although the article mentions only one MP by name it does suggest that a forum was established by liberal MPs, AMs and councillors.
Are they wrong to adopt this approach?
(Still no statistically significant warming this century)
There's already a huge DECC feasibility study going on at the moment, so what's the point of this?
And as for global warming, here's some bedtime reading:
http://tinyurl.com/cfw9wy
BBC also did the same thing "Seven Barrage Rejected" - only to say further down the article that they suggested a smaller one nearer the severn crossing. So the idea of a barrage wasn't rejected at all then, just the current proposals.
Shoddy journalism at best.
DECC - Consultations and studies by Government seem to come up with the answer the government want. An alternative view is welcome.
Thanks for the link. Science by opinion poll?
What would Thomas Huxley say? Concensus Climate Science
The point is that there is more than one opinion on this and that DECC may form the wrong one. Surely it is right that political parties form their own views on controversial issues such as this. This study is part of that process.
The Government doesn't have 'an answer the Government wants' on this. It genuinely is a feasibility study, and I don't think there's anyone the Lib Dems could consult who wouldn't already have fed into the main inquiry. As for the suggestion that 'there's more than one opinion and DECC may form the wrong one' - that sounds like you've already made your mind up what is 'the right one'...
Good job electricty has all ready been installed all over the place, can you imagine the fuss it's instalatiion would cause to the muppits who seem to argue against everything.
Why do we need all these studies ? Does some one in parliament have a consultancy ? No it's run by their spouce/partner, in all probability
The Government doesn't have 'an answer the Government wants' on thisActually, that's not quite true. The answer the government doesn't want is that the barrage would not be cost-effective when it comes to set up costs vs. amount of electricity actually generated (which is in all honesty, probably the case) because they want to be able to push the "green energy" bandwagon as hard and as fast as they can, firstly on ridiculous directives from Brussels telling us what percentage of our energy should come from renewables, and also because it provides weight and percieved justification to the many green taxes that seem to have cropped up.
Nuclear is, has been, and always will be the way forward. If only we'd realised this ten years ago, like the French did, rather than pissing around with farcical non-starters like wind farms (look nice, but generate sod-all power, and only half the time, with massive maintenance costs) and giving airtime to paranoid anti-nuclear people who haven't got the slightest clue what they are protesting against and are just allergic to the "N" word then we wouldn't be in this mess.
Actually I spent yesterday morning in the company of some bods from Garrad Hassan, which is the world's biggest wind engineering consultancy. Very interesting discussion about what can be done to facilitate renewables, e.g. grid connection, tariffs, planning rules.
Yes, there's lots of money to be made in the renewable energy field (as it's now enshrined in EU directives) - ask your favourite friend Old Holborn.
If I had money to buy shares, that's definitely the industry I'd hedge my bets on.
Post a Comment